Lost Cousins and 1841 census - again

[At home in NZ]

I have read all the instructions, I have read the previous discussion I raised about 1841 and FMP and I still cannot work out how to search solely by reference.

One of my third great grandmothers was added to Lost Cousins using FTA. when I click on the arrow the FMP result is 0.
I edited the person by correcting the age, but that didn't work.
On the FMP page, to the left the piece number etc. are exactly as in Ancestry. I deleted the page number and get a long list of people but my person is not there.
The only way I know how to search for her in FMP is to use her name and birth year, I found her BUT as I do not subscribe to FMP I cannot see the transcription to find out the correct references.
What am I supposed to do??

I have never been an FMP fan and am even less of a one now due to this frustrating experience.

 

[Helen7]

Does it really matter if the arrow key gives a zero result on FMP, as long as you are sure you have the right reference from the Ancestry image?

I had a similar 'zero' result, as I posted on another thread back in 2019, thus:

"recently I had a '0 matches' return on the FMP link for a family on the 1841 census which I had entered manually from the Ancestry record (and taken care to correct the incorrect folio number!). On searching for this census on FMP by location and by reference, I found this particular hamlet (Thornhill in Derbyshire, piece: 186, book: 18, 6 pages) only has the final page transcribed on FMP, the other 5 pages appear to be missing (well, you can navigate to the images from the final page, but they are illegible). It got me wondering how common such omissions might be on FMP?"

As long as you have the correct references from the image on Ancestry (remembering that the transcribed folio number is often wrong, as it was in the above case), that's all you can do, I think.

 

[Tim]

What are the refs that you have in LostCousins and the name? I can see what it finds in FMP for you.

 

[peter]

It got me wondering how common such omissions might be on FMP

Because enumerators were instructed to use pencil a lot of pages from the 1841 Census were illegible or virtually illegible when microfilmed. Ancestry scanned the worst pages from the original books, but Findmypast acquired their copy of the 1841 Census from Origins, who were the first to transcribe this census, and worked from the microfilm.

So I'd expect there to be quite a few gaps in Findmypast's version - perhaps as many as 1%. However, because Ancestry get 50% of the folio numbers wrong it's safer to recommend Findmypast.

 

[Helen7]

Ancestry scanned the worst pages from the original books, but Findmypast acquired their copy of the 1841 Census from Origins, who were the first to transcribe this census, and worked from the microfilm.

Thanks, that explains why the page I referred to above was perfectly clear on Ancestry but illegible on FMP.

 

[At home in NZ]

What are the refs that you have in LostCousins and the name? I can see what it finds in FMP for you.

Yes please Tim.
She is Mary Fleet 1209/16/9/9

EDIT: Tim, see next thread.

 

[At home in NZ]

I had a brainwave. I looked for Mary in the 1841 census in FamilySearch and found her. Here
I changed the folio number to 8 and Lost Cousins found her. Here

Next question
Where Mary is found, there are last names that are question marks but can be clearly read in the image in Ancestry. What are we supposed to do in those cases?

 

[Helen7]

Where Mary is found, there are last names that are question marks but can be clearly read in the image in Ancestry. What are we supposed to do in those cases?

The image is very faint on FMP, but much clearer on Ancestry. I'd use the information from Ancestry, with the folio number corrected from 9 to 8.

 

[At home in NZ]

The image is very faint on FMP, but much clearer on Ancestry. I'd use the information from Ancestry, with the folio number corrected from 9 to 8.

I would like a ruling from Peter about this because I have other instances and it making me wonder how on earth a Lost Cousin match can be achieved.

 

[At home in NZ]

Some examples of 1841 FMP census records that have question marks instead of names:

This is one of them

This is another

 

[Pauline]

However, because Ancestry get 50% of the folio numbers wrong it's safer to recommend Findmypast.

Ancestry have now corrected at least some of these folio number errors, and these days I'm finding the majority of those given in their transcriptions are now correct.

The error most often made by Ancestry initially (and by many transcribers before them) was to assume the folio number of the LH page was that given on the facing RH page. In fact LH pages should have the folio number of the previous RH page.

So if the reference checking at FMP doesn't find an entry entered from Ancestry then try with the previous folio number instead and see if FMP then finds it. If not, you will have to think again but it is probably worth trying first.

 

[At home in NZ]

So if the reference checking at FMP doesn't find an entry entered from Ancestry then try with the previous folio number instead and see if FMP then finds it

Thanks Pauline.

I await a ruling from Peter about the question marks.

 

[peter]

I await a ruling from Peter about the question marks.

Presumably the question marks only appear in the transcript, not on the census schedule?

In 1841 the primary source for entering relatives at LostCousins is the handwritten schedule. Whilst in practice we may take information from the transcript, that's only for convenience - where there is no difference it doesn't matter which we use, and where there is a difference between the two it's the schedule that matters.

If a schedule is illegible it's up to the user to find a better copy elsewhere - they'll want this for their own records.

 

[At home in NZ]

Presumably the question marks only appear in the transcript, not on the census schedule?

My concern was that the entry in LC which is supposed to match up with the result in FTM does not match in these instances. Because, the names are not an exact match.

I think you have clarified it to the extent that as long as the piece, book, folio and page numbers match it doesn't matter what rubbish is presented in the names in FMP.
Thanks Peter.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I think you have clarified it to the extent that as long as the piece, book, folio and page numbers match it doesn't matter what rubbish is presented in the names in FMP.

I think your closing comment a little churlish and was about to respond to your thread before Peter gave the only credible answer. I found the question of whether to take note of ???? or names revealed in Ancestry more in keeping to those posed by beginner researchers on FMP's Facebook page. I know you are not in that league of course and are hampered by not being an FMP subscriber, but surely the obvious answer was -as you rightly summarise - to align references and enter the names provided by Ancestry Schedule/Transcript. LC matching will not be compromised I'm sure.

The reason I subscribe to both Ancestry & FMP (despite additional cost of course) is to minimise 'grey' areas when only having one for in depth research, and for which Family Search/Free BMD cannot provide an answer.

 

[peter]

I think you have clarified it to the extent that as long as the piece, book, folio and page numbers match it doesn't matter what rubbish is presented in the names in FMP.

When it comes to the 1841 census it doesn't matter what the transcript says at ANY site - it's only the handwritten census that matters.

By contrast in 1881 it doesn't matter what the handwritten census says, it's only the LDS transcript that matters.

The Add Ancestor form gives appropriate instructions for each census.

 

[At home in NZ]

I think your closing comment a little churlish

I don't think so:
Some common synonyms of churlish are boorish, clownish, and loutish. While all these words mean "uncouth in manners or appearance," churlish suggests surliness, unresponsiveness, and ungraciousness.

A well used expression when I was working with users, data testing and reporting was 'rubbish in and rubbish out'.

 

[Bob Spiers]

A well used expression when I was working with users, data testing and reporting was 'rubbish in and rubbish out'.

Yes one of my favourite expressions, and used by me before in this Forum when responding to computer themed discussions. I have also inferred the same about transcriptions not interpreting what was originally written, but Peter - perhaps rightly - defends that it is not the job of the Transcriber to second guess, only to record what he/she sees. So of course recording things they cannot deciper as '???'.

Incidentally my dictionary gives Churlish as 'rude in a mean-spirited way', which I thought interpreted your mood as you are no fan of FMP , but accept a better adjective might have applied.

 

[peter]

A well used expression when I was working with users, data testing and reporting was 'rubbish in and rubbish out'.

When I got involved with computers in the 1970s the expression was "garbage in, garbage out", or GIGO. But "rubbish" works just as well.

Most people are rightly resistant to the concept entering information that they know is wrong - that's why LostCousins users have the option of adding corrections (which are ignored by the matching system, but make their relatives easier to identify).